£6 charge for address update on dogs chip.

[Deleted User]

The argument is quite simple, you have a web site, even if  only the end-user ( ie the doog owner) enters data onto it, the site owner still needs to pay for their broadband, the software, the tech if it breaks down. The only people who would be put off by a £6 charge  (for what is likely to be a 'one-off'  change unless you move a lot!) are those who probably haven't had their dog chipped anyway.

Lavendyr

JIL said:To be clear, the reason I was ducking out is that the thread was about a £6 charge for going on line to update an address, no human interaction and how this being a database, for details of a missing pet, could put some people off updating due to the charge. I paid. It wasnt about me. It was the irony.

You cant say I'm in the wrong  ( and what a strange turn of phrase to use, relating to  having a different opinion) without some data to back that up. You or I cannot say what numbers that would affect, but we have to remember that not everyone is a responsible pet owner or has the cash to do this.

Actually yes, I can say confidently that you are in the wrong, because you are the person who started the thread to grumble about the cost of changing address on a microchip database, and you don't seem to understand that maintaining a database comes with ongoing costs which need to be met for the service to be provided.

This isn't about data and it isn't about opinions. This is about what someone responsible for a pet needs to do - and in the case of microchipping, it's also the law (https://www.gov.uk/get-your-dog-microchipped): "You’re responsible for keeping your dog’s microchip information up to date, for example if you move house."

And in the context of the other costs of pet ownership, this is a tiny cost. How much do we as pet owners spend on insurance, food, toys etc? £6 every time you move is ridiculously trivial.

Also, it was about you. Read your first post back. "It was pointed out at the vets  that I hadnt updated my address details on my dogs "chip"." This whole thread started existence being about you and your resistance to the system in place. 

And there is no irony here. 

JIL

Then I suggest you read the definition of "in the wrong"

I was in the wrong for not changing the address sooner, however as to the £6 charge, there isnt a right or wrong answer. 

My resistance was the charge to update an address, not the actual chip. Although I hardly resisted. I paid, first time of asking.

I still think it's wrong to charge £6 with no human interaction to change an address.  I agree it costs money to keep a database running but when I changed the address, the web page wasnt without numerous advertising.

If the vets can read all chips, I feel there could be a better way to do things.

Just a final point, dogs have to be chipped by 8 weeks old, so there isnt really a choice as to company or package.

Bradden

JIL said:

I still think it's wrong to charge £6 with no human interaction to change an address.  I agree it costs money to keep a database running but when I changed the address, the web page wasnt without numerous advertising.

I disagree..paying £6 to cover their overheads for the peace of mind knowing my pet can be traced to me seems like a bargain

Hedgepigs

Given aside from that and the original microchip cost, the service is free for the life of your pet I don't think it's worth grumbling over. It's made pretty clear your option is to pay the extra upfront for the premium, or pay per address change.

Clearly the only way they would be able to offer everyone free address changes and maintain their required income to run the service would be to charge everyone the £20 to start with bundled up with the microchip cost and do away with the 'free' pay per address service, so you'd be no better off.

[Deleted User]

JIL said:

Then I suggest you read the definition of "in the wrong"

I was in the wrong for not changing the address sooner, however as to the £6 charge, there isnt a right or wrong answer. 

My resistance was the charge to update an address, not the actual chip. Although I hardly resisted. I paid, first time of asking.

I still think it's wrong to charge £6 with no human interaction to change an address.  I agree it costs money to keep a database running but when I changed the address, the web page wasnt without numerous advertising.

If the vets can read all chips, I feel there could be a better way to do things.

Just a final point, dogs have to be chipped by 8 weeks old, so there isnt really a choice as to company or package.

It's unlikely the advertising pays enough to make a substantial contribution to the costs. I don't know why you think 8 weeks isn't long enough to be able to choose a company or package, the vet who does the chipping is YOUR choice so you just ask them  in advance. 

JIL

My point has always been it's not about me, I paid the £6. I would rather have bought £6 worth of dog food to donate though.

It's about changing the address and no human interaction and being charged.

I feel this will put some people off. 

A friend has just got a puppy. It was chipped at 6 weeks. She didn't get a choice it was done. She had no charge to do the update.

However before I started this thread, I wasnt aware of how the database worked or indeed how many there are. Let alone the huge cost variations.

I haven't changed my mind that being charged to update an address works against, why we chip our pets. 

rollingmoon

If I want to change the address on my car insurance that'll cost me £50 - now *that's* a rip-off. £6 is a bargain!

JIL

rollingmoon said:

If I want to change the address on my car insurance that'll cost me £50 - now *that's* a rip-off. £6 is a bargain!

I remembered to change address on my car insurance, no charge and a £35 refund.

Debbie9009

OP, as you feel it’s wrong for the dog owner to be charged to change the address, who do you think should pay ?